Mediaboss Marketing

William Barrs testimony before the Jan. 6 committee forms part of the former attorney generals strategy for saving his reputation in the history books. Thats a heavy lift, given Barrs distinguished service to Donald Trumps presidency via distortion of the conclusions of special counsel Robert Muellers report and his politicization of the Department of Justice.

But Barrs depiction of Trump as being detached from reality after the election does have independent significance. It demonstrates that it is possible to have been a loyal Trump supporter nay, an enabler through the investigation of the possible collusion with Russia and the Ukraine-related first impeachment, yet still draw the line at Trumps efforts to overturn the results of a presidential election.

This in turn matters for what it might mean for the future of Republican politics. Maybe, just maybe, Barrs position can help signal to Republicans that election denialism shouldnt be the future of the party and that Trump can be left behind.

In this admittedly idealized scenario, it is not precisely that Republicans at all levels of government could be expected affirmatively to deny the existence of fraud in the 2020 elections. Rather, they would just gradually stop talking about it.

And because Trump himself clearly cannot and will not acknowledge his defeat, changing the subject would be a sign for Republicans, including his current supporters, to get over Trump himself. They could transfer their attention to would-be Trumps like Ron DeSantis and J.D. Vance.

Listening to Barrs testimony was a reminder of just how convincing the lawyer can be and why he demonstrates a kind of evil genius for bureaucratic self-preservation. To hear Barr tell it, before the election he found it possible to deliver hard truths to Trump. There was sometimes wrangling, but Barr said he felt able to get his message across.

Weekly

The week's top opinion content and an opportunity to participate in a weekly question on a topic that affects our region.

The idea that Barr could, before the election, somehow speak truth to power to Trump sounds pretty far-fetched at best. Trump badly needed his attorney general to help get through the Mueller investigation debacle. Barr joined the administration knowing full well that the president needed him. If Trump listened to Barr or appeared to, it was no doubt because Barr had leverage over his boss while his administration was at its most vulnerable juncture.

After the election defeat, Trump no longer needed the nearly unique legal and political skills that Barr deployed in saving the president from the consequences of his actions. He needed lawyers who would take affirmative steps to overturn the election. Once he understood that Barr wasnt going to do that, he was able to dismiss Barrs advice that the claims of election fraud were bull----.

The thing is, the plausibility of Barrs assertion about his relationship with Trump before the election is irrelevant to the deeper issue of whether Barr can help the Republican Party free itself of Trump now. Barr is no popular (or populist) politician, to be sure. Hes a D.C. insider, the political appointees political appointee.

Barrs testimony provides a useful, usable story Republicans might be able to accept, albeit quietly. Simply: Trump was a great president. There was no Russia collusion. The first impeachment was illegitimate. Then Trump lost the election. What followed was regrettable and should now be repudiated or at least forgotten.

So far, the would-be post-Trump Trumpists are too worried about alienating his followers to do so. But that could change if politicians like DeSantis and Vance sense that there is room for them to say, Trump is dead, long live Trumpism. To the extent Barrs testimony contributes to that possibility, thats something everyone should welcome.

The Democrats who not so secretly hope Trump runs for president again, gambling that he would be far less electable than another Republican, have to consider whats good for the country. Even if a clear majority of voters reject him, we have come too close to seeing how one man could pave the way for the eventual democratic failure in the United States.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery and the Refounding of America.

See the original post:
Opinion: William Barr is handing Republicans a Trump exit strategy - The Virginian-Pilot

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court seems poised to take on a new elections case being pressed by Republicans that could increase the power of state lawmakers over races for Congress and the presidency, as well as redistricting, and cut state courts out of the equation.

The issue has arisen repeatedly in cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where Democratic majorities on the states highest courts have invoked voting protections in their state constitutions to frustrate the plans of Republican-dominated legislatures.

Already, four conservative Supreme Court justices have noted their interest in deciding whether state courts, finding violations of their state constitutions, can order changes to federal elections and the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional districts. The Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independent state legislature doctrine, although three justices advanced it in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential election.

The issue is almost certain to keep arising until the Court definitively resolves it, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in March.

It only takes four of the nine justices to agree to hear a case. A majority of five is needed for an eventual decision.

Many election law experts are alarmed by the prospect that the justices might seek to reduce state courts powers over elections.

A ruling endorsing a strong or muscular reading of the independent state legislature theory would potentially give state legislatures even more power to curtail voting rights and provide a pathway for litigation to subvert the election outcomes expressing the will of the people, law professor Richard Hasen wrote in an email.

But if the justices are going to get involved, Hasen said, it does make sense for the Court to do it outside the context of an election with national implications.

The court could say as early as Tuesday, or perhaps the following week, whether it will hear an appeal filed by North Carolina Republicans. The appeal challenges a state court ruling that threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly that made GOP candidates likely victors in 10 of the states 14 congressional districts.

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the boundaries violated state constitution provisions protecting free elections and freedoms of speech and association by handicapping voters who support Democrats.

The new map that eventually emerged and is being used this year gives Democrats a good chance to win six seats, and possibly a seventh in a new toss-up district.

Pennsylvanias top court also selected a map that Republicans say probably will lead to the election of more Democrats, as the two parties battle for control of the U.S. House in the midterm elections in November. An appeal from Pennsylvania also is waiting, if the court for some reason passes on the North Carolina case.

Nationally, the parties fought to a draw in redistricting, which leaves Republicans positioned to win control of the House even if they come up just short of winning a majority of the national vote.

If the GOP does well in November, the party also could capture seats on state supreme courts, including in North Carolina, that might allow for the drawing of more slanted maps that previous courts rejected. Two court seats held by North Carolina Democrats are on the ballot this year and Republicans need to win just one to take control of the court for the first time since 2017.

In their appeal to the nations high court, North Carolina Republicans wrote that it is time for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the elections clause in the U.S. Constitution, which gives each states legislature the responsibility to determine the times, places and manner of holding congressional elections.

Activist judges and allied plaintiffs have proved time and time again that they believe state courts have the ultimate say over congressional maps, no matter what the U.S. Constitution says, North Carolina Senate leader Phil Berger said when the appeal was filed in March.

The Supreme Court generally does not disturb state court rulings that are rooted in state law.

But four Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have said the court should step in to decide whether state courts had improperly taken powers given by the U.S. Constitution to state lawmakers.

That was the argument that Thomas and two other conservative justices put forward in Bush v. Gore, although that case was decided on other grounds.

If the court takes up the North Carolina case and rules in the GOPs favor, North Carolina Republicans could draw new maps for 2024 elections with less worry that the state Supreme Court would strike them down.

Defenders of state court involvement argue that state lawmakers would also gain the power to pass provisions that would suppress voting, subject only to challenge in federal courts. Delegating power to election boards and secretaries of state to manage federal elections in emergencies also could be questioned legally, some scholars said.

Its adoption would radically change our elections, Ethan Herenstein and Tom Wolf, both with the Brennan Centers Democracy Program at the New York University Law School, wrote earlier this month.

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

See more here:
Justices seem poised to hear elections case pressed by Republicans - Press Herald

House Minority Leader McCarthy and Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming appeared together at a 2020 press conference, prior to landing on opposite sides of the congressional investigation into the January 6, 2021 siege at the US Capitol.Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The January 6 committee has interviewed nearly 1,000 witnesses about what its members say was an effort to overturn the US election.

Seven House Republicans have, so far, elected not to answer the committee's questions.

Defying this investigation could empower Democrats to do the same when Republicans return to power.

While some Trump administration officials have been indicted for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 select committee's investigation into the deadly siege at the US Capitol, a half-dozen House Republicans (and counting) have, so far, sidestepped testifying before the congressional panel.

The holdouts, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jim Jordan of Ohio, have offered varying reasons for not participating ranging from complaining about the committee's public outreach to assailing the "baseless witch hunt."

The committee and its witnesses, meanwhile, are presenting accounts that Trump and his advisors were informed their efforts to overturn the election possibly illegal but pressed on, with some of them seeking pardons in the Trump administration's final days.

Their arguments could come back to haunt them if they win back control of the House this fall, and Jordan or House Committee on Administration ranking member Rodney Davis of Illinois try to flex the new majority party's powers next year only to have House Democrats recycle the precedent-setting rejections.

Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona

Republican Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona speaks during the Freedom Caucus press conference on immigration outside the Capitol on Wednesday, March 17, 2021.Photo By Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The select committee in a May 2, 2022 letter asked Biggs to testify about any communications he'd had with former President Donald Trump, Trump administration officials, and Stop the Steal rally organizers about challenging the 2020 election results.

Biggs accused the committee of leaking subpoenas to the press before notifying the actual members involved, and railed against the "pure political theater."

"The January 6 Committee's ongoing, baseless witch hunt is nothing more than an effort to distract the American people from the Democrats' and Biden's disastrous leadership," Biggs said May 12 in a press release.

Story continues

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama

Republican Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama conducts a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on the Fire Fauci Act on Tuesday, June 15, 2021.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The select committee in a May 2, 2022 letter asked Brooks to testify about public statements he made in March about Trump repeatedly lobbying him to "rescind" the 2020 election and reinstall him as president. Brooks aired those particular grievances after Trump pulled his endorsement from Brooks' bid to replace retiring Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Brooks began laying out stipulations for testifying before the "partisan Witch Hunt Committee" in an undated statement, but then declared "that time has long passed."

"If they want to talk, they're gonna have to send me a subpoena, which I will fight," Brooks said in a campaign press release.

Brooks told Insider that he considers himself an outlier among the investigation's targets because everything he knows is already in the public domain, including testimony he gave in 2021 after being sued by Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California about the insurrection at the US Capitol.

"I am quite different from all other persons the Committee seeks to interview in that I have already given numerous, lengthy written, sworn statements (Swalwell lawsuit) and written, unsworn public statements that detail my knowledge and conduct concerning January 6 events," Brooks wrote in an email. "The Committee thus already has a fairly full accounting of all knowledge I have."

Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas

Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas is a former White House physician who has declared Trump in "excellent health."Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The select committee in a May 2, 2022 letter asked Jackson to testify about any communications he had with members of the pro-Trump Oath Keepers or participants in the "Stop the Steal" rally that immediately preceded the attack on the US Capitol.

Jackson fired back the same day, disavowing any text messaging with Oath Keepers and bashing the committee and press for their "ruthless crusade against President Trump and his allies."

"Yet again, the illegitimate January 6 Committee proves its agenda is malicious and not substantive," Jackson said in a press release. "Their attempt to drag out a manufactured narrative illustrates why the American people are sick of the media and this partisan Committee's use of January 6 as a political tool against conservatives they do not like."

Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio at a Capitol Hill press conference.Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Jordan's got the longest-running paper trail with the committee to date.

The select committee got things rolling on December 22, 2021 by asking Jordan to testify about his communications with Trump before, during, and after January 6, 2021 regarding challenging the election results.

In his initial response on January 9, 2022, Jordan said he had "no relevant information" to offer the committee, and took investigators to task for even asking.

"This request is far outside the bounds of any legitimate inquiry, violates core Constitutional principles, and would serve to further erode legislative norms," Jordan wrote in his first letter back to the committee.

After he'd been subpoenaed, Jordan noted that he was still waiting to hear back about questions he posed to the committee in January and bristled at the "dangerous escalation" of compelling him to testify.

"You have not substantively addressed any of the points in the letter or alleviated any of the concerns I raised," Jordan wrote on May 25 adding, that the same concerns "still exist today and have only grown as the Select Committee has continued to leak nonpublic information in a misleading manner in the intervening period."

A federal judge, however, dismissed Republican contentions that the committee is improperly constituted and doesn't serve a legislative purpose, and recently a judge swept aside similar arguments made by one-time Trump advisor Steve Bannon in his failed attempt to get his contempt of Congress trial dismissed.

Jordan delved even deeper into why he's unlikely to ever testify before the committee in the 11-page, heavily-footnoted letter he sent the panel on June 9. In that third missive, Jordan contests the panel's formation, membership, subpoena powers, and "legislative purpose," among other things.

"You seem to believe that you have the authority to arbitrate the scope of a colleague's official activities," Jordan wrote on June 9. "Respectfully, I do not answer to you or the other members of the Select Committee. I am accountable to the voters of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District."

Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia

Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia has faced scrutiny for leading a tour group through the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021.Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

The select committee has repeatedly asked Loudermilk to testify about a tour group he led through the US Capitol complex on January 5, 2021 that included at least one person who returned the following day during the riot.

The committee's first letter on May 19, 2022 mentioned that it had reviewed security footage of said tour and that investigators had questions about where they had been.

House Committee on Administration ranking member Rodney Davis defended Loudermilk a day later on social media, calling reports of GOP-led reconnaissance tours "demonstrably false" and urging the Capitol Police to release all security footage from January 5 to clear the air.

The committee released clips of the Loudermilk-led tour on June 15 and followed up with another letter asking him to explain why one of the photo-snapping group members appeared to be documenting areas "not typically of interest to tourists, including hallways, staircases, and security checkpoints."

Loudermilk responded on Twitter, lambasting the committee for "undermining the Capitol Police and doubling down on their smear campaign."

Loudermilk's account of who was on the tour and what they were interested in has shifted over the past 18 months.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy talks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, DC on April 6, 2022.Scott J. Applewhite/AP

The select committee in a January 12, 2022 letter asked McCarthy to testify about his communications with Trump before, during, and after January 6, 2021 regarding challenging the election results. McCarthy has acknowledged having at least one conversation with Trump while MAGA supporters were swarming the Capitol, but has, so far, declined to discuss it with the committee.

The committee subpoenaed him about it on May 25.

McCarthy told reporters that he's sent the committee two official responses through his attorney, Elliot S. Berke, and said he's considering releasing said letters to the press. McCarthy aides did not respond to Insider's request for copies of the letters.

CNN reports that in one letter, Berke accused the committee of playing partisan politics.

"Its only objective appears to be to attempt to score political points or damage its political opponents acting like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee one day and the Department of Justice the next," Berke wrote.

When asked why Democrats should comply with any congressional investigations House Republicans choose to pursue if they claim the majority next year given the defiance he and others have shown about January 6, McCarthy said the difference is "we won't be illegitimate."

"We won't issue subpoenas going after our political opponents," McCarthy told reporters at a June 9 press conference. "We'll do exactly what Congress is supposed to do. We'll uphold the Constitution."

Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania

Republican Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania photographed outside the US Capitol on December 3, 2020.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

The select committee in a December 20, 2021 letter asked Perry to testify about his communications with Trump administration officials about installing Department of Justice attorney Jeffrey Clark as acting US attorney general to help overturn the 2020 election results.

Perry accused the "political witch hunt" of "fabricating headlines" in a May 12 press release, but didn't specify whether he'd testify.

Perry's attorney John P. Rowley III closed the door on that in the response he sent the committee on May 24.

Rowley wrote that Perry declined to testify before a committee "that is operating in contravention of its own rules" and "committed to scoring political points, rather than focusing on the troublemakers who broke into the Capitol."

Perry has also denied that he sought a presidential pardon for anything related to the 2020 election tampering. January 6 committee cochair Liz Cheney said during the June 9 hearing that investigators had uncovered evidence that Perry and other GOP lawmakers had angled for pardons after the Capitol was attacked.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Read more:
These 7 House Republicans aren't cooperating with the January 6 committee and here's how they've justified blowing off the investigation - Yahoo News

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who voted to impeach then-President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, said on Sunday he believes Trump will run again in 2024 and that voters still like him a lot.

Upton predicted to CNN State of the Union co-anchor Dana Bash that the former president will be difficult to beat if he pursues a third bid for the White House amid high prices at the pump and other economic challenges.

Hes had a number of decisive wins where hes endorsed candidates that they have won, Upton said of Trump. Hes had a few losses as well, but he certainly entertains a majority of the Republican base and will be hard to stop.

Democrats are facing historical headwinds as this years midterm elections approach, a political problem exacerbated by voters concerns over President Bidens handling of the economy.

As we look at the economy, we look at gas prices, all these different things, folks are not really happy with the Biden administration, which is why he is mired at a level even below where Donald Trump was at this point in his tenure, Upton said on Sunday.

Bidens approval rating clocked in at 39 percent, according to a USA Today-Suffolk University poll released last Monday that mirrors other recent dismal surveys for the president.

Meanwhile, Upton has faced increasing criticism from his own party after supporting legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate Jan. 6 alongside 34 other House Republicans as well as joining nine of his Republican colleagues in impeaching Trump.

One of those 10 Republicans, Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.), was defeated in his GOP primary last Tuesday against former state Rep. Russell Fry, whom Trump endorsed.

Despite recent victories from many Trump-backed candidates, Upton, who is not running for reelection, said on Sunday he expects some Republicans who voted to impeach Trump will remain in office.

We will see when these primaries are over, but, yes, I think there will be some of the 10 that are standing, Upton said.

Originally posted here:
Republican who voted to impeach Trump says former president will be hard to stop - The Hill

When retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig said at Thursdays blockbuster hearing of the Jan. 6 House committee that "Donald Trump, his allies and his supporters are a clear and present danger to our democracy, it served as yet another hair-on-fire warning that the former president and those around him have no fealty to the rule of law or democratic traditions.

Trump was told that Pence had no constitutional standing to hand the election to Trump and his attempt to do so would break the law. But that didnt stop him.

In Republican-dominated state legislatures around the country, new laws based on Trumps false claims about electoral fraud are making it more difficult to vote, and in particular, to cast mail-in ballots. More than 100 Republicans whove repeated Trumps lies about the 2020 election have won GOP primaries. Even this week, Republican election officials in New Mexico refused to certify a local election over bogus concerns about the use of Dominion voting machines, which Trump and his supporters wrongly vilified.

Even more dismaying is that none of Trumps aides who rejected his lie and his plot have done so publicly. The committee showed video testimony from Jason Miller, a Trump campaign adviser, dismissing Eastmans legal theories as "crazy" but the committee also showed his appearance on Fox News on Jan.5, demanding that Pence stop the certification.

Those around Trump either told him what he wanted to hear or enabled his fantasies. Even as he continued to spread misinformation and tell his supporters that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, they said nothing. They only talked after they were subpoenaed.

Earlier this week, we heard from the committee that Trump was told multiple times that his claims about a stolen election were not true and that he had lost the 2020 election fairly and squarely. But that didnt stop him, and hasnt stopped him from repeating the lie over and over again.

On Thursday, the committee presented evidence that Trump was told multiple times, including by Vice President Mike Pence, that his efforts to get the vice president to stop the certification of electoral votes on Jan.6 would not fly. Trump was told that Pence had no constitutional standing to hand the election to Trump, and his attempt to do so would break the law. But that didnt stop him, and he continued to publicly and privately pressure Pence up through Jan.6.

On the morning Congress was to meet to certify the results, according to evidence the committee presented Thursday, Trump, in a heated phone call with Pence, called him a wimp and a pussy for refusing to do what he asked. Trump went to the Ellipse that day and further admonished Pence in public.

As the insurrection was unfolding, Trump tweeted, Mike Pence didnt have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution, giving states a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands truth! From all appearances, that electronic communication from Trump only seems to have further antagonized the rioters attacking the Capitol.

To Luttigs point about allies and supporters, Trump didn't act alone. His top legal adviser and enabler, John Eastman, continued to push his harebrained legal theory that Pence could stop the certification even after virtually every member of the White House staff, and Pences own chief of staff and counsel, told him it was a no-go.

White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said he told Eastman youre going to cause riots in the streets. Eastman allegedly shrugged and said America has witnessed such violence before.

According to Thursdays testimony from Pences legal counsel, Greg Jacob, Eastman acknowledged that his plan would violate the Electoral Count Act and, thus, break the law. Jacob said Eastman also acknowledged that the Supreme Court would reject his legal reasoning, likely unanimously.

In video testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, White House lawyer Eric Herschmann said he told Eastman youre going to cause riots in the streets. Eastman reportedly shrugged and said America had witnessed such violence before.

Even after Trumps supporters had trashed the Capitol building, Jacob testified, Eastman was still lobbying Pences staff to have the vice president stop the certification.

And then, in what is perhaps the most telling and gobsmacking moment of the hearing, the committee acknowledged the existence of an email Eastman sent to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani asking to be placed on a list of individuals to be pardoned by Trump.

The duplicity is stunning. Trump and Eastman understood full well that what they were proposing was illegal, could lead to violence and would fundamentally undermine American democracy.

Apparently, they didnt care.

When his plan fell apart, Eastman also beseeched the president to grant him a pardon so he couldnt be held accountable for his actions.

Trump continues to beat the drum of the big lie by lying to his supporters and demanding that Republican officeholders accept his lunacy or face his political wrath.

Rather than reject Trumps cascade of lies as the overwhelming majority of Trumps White House aides and the vice president did at the time Republicans continue to enable Trumps assault on American democracy.

In short, as Luttig suggests, the dangers represented by Trump and the cowardice of those who have allowed him to take a stronghold over the Republican Party remain clear and present. None of this was inevitable. Its the result of weak men and women who remained silent.

Michael A. Cohen, a columnist for MSNBC and a fellow with the Eurasia Group Foundation, writes the political newsletterTruth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, themost recent beingClear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.

See more here:
Trump and January 6 will continue to haunt America - MSNBC